Jim Mangin

When I was a member of the Town Council I was 100% responsible for the police salaries. Is that clear enough for you. The fire contracts were settled after I left office. OK, now that we've established that the Mayor and Council (including me) are 100% responsible for salaries, don't you find it odd that the Mayor is trying to shift blame from the Town Council to binding arbitration? Jim Mangin

What the hell are you talking about? If I don't like something that's going on, I'm going to speak up. If that doesn't work, I'm going to run again. If that doesn't work (insert your own joke here) I'm still going to speak up. Moving out is not an option. A recall is. And while it's not my issue, I still think it's a good idea - even if it doesn't make the ballot. Sorry, they'll be no "going quietly into the night." Jim Mangin

Paul, As I read this post all I could think of was the redundancy of "Four legs good, two legs bad." But seriously, you gave your opinion on a policy discussion after considering alternatives. I applaud you for that. That is much more than the Mayor and Council did on this issue, which has been my point all along. Now in my opinion, you are more professional than the Mayor. The funny thing is I don't disagree with your opinion on the captial project. I agree. It wasn't unreasonable. I never said it was. I just think there were tax saving alternatives that should have been considered. Maybe the Mayor and Council would've reached the same conclusion you did. We'll never know now, will we? As for the Mayor's professionalism, I've asked for a specific example. Or are just basing your opinion on his demeanor alone? As for a "lack of evidence" of tax savings for my proposal, what is lacking? Simple math will tell you that if you bond when you don't have to (and we didn't have to) you incur costs (see NJSA:40A 2-20 for a reference). Finally, as for exploring the United Water contract - I sincerely hope you do. With that one brief sentence you've already dedicated more effort than the Mayor and Council has on the issue. Issues like this should be looked into. It's just a shame the Mayor doesn't share your view. Again Paul, my point in all of this is not to debate policy with you (although I really do enjoy it). My point has been to show that debate is the fuel for government action. You've clearly proven my point on this, and I honestly feel you believe that debate is necessary in a democracy. There has been no debate on issues by the Kearny Town Council. No fuel. No action. This is why I feel a recall is good for Kearny. But, I have no intentions of running against the Mayor at this time. Someday - maybe. But not now. If a recall movement gets going you'll see more debate and I believe you'll see more action. You and I may not always agree on whether it is the right action, but if it is arrived at after considering all the alternatives - so be it. I've always said - government works. Everyone has to do their part to get everyone talking about issues. Jim Mangin

Paul, I've given you plenty of information on this topic. I don't need a legal opinion on whether it was right or wrong. I'm interested in your opinion. You have stated several times in this thread that if shown the details you might change your mind on the Mayor. What is your opinion? Are you still gathering information? If so, that's fine. In the meantime, can you name even one circumstance that lead you to the notion that he is "professional?" Jim Mangin

Paul, I'll try and clarify. After Streetscape I was completed the Mayor and Council applied to the UEZ to get all of Kearny Ave re-paved. The UEZ approved the project but they don't disperse the funds all at once. I don't remember if it was dispersed over 3, 4, 5, or even 6 years. Assuming it was 3, that leaves the Council with 2 options - re-pave one-third of Kearny Ave every year for 3 years, or wait 3 years and re-pave the whole thing. Instead the Council bonded $3.1 million for the project. All of Kearny Ave would be paved at once. The project would be paid by the bond and the portion of the bond used for the project would be re-paid by the UEZ disbursement. The downside was that we would have to pay interest and costs on the bond to get the project completed at once. When the project was completed there was $1.8 million left in proceeds. If the Mayor and Council agreed that this money actually existed we could have considered my alternative of using this $1.8 million instead of a new bond, saving the interest and soft costs. After finally agreeing that the money did exist the Mayor claimed (incorrectly) that it had to be used for another UEZ project (NJSA40A:2-39) - like Streetscape II. My point is that we could have waited for all the UEZ disbursements to accumulate before proceeding with Streetscape II. We then could have used the $1.8 million for more immediate capital projects or for tax relief. Neither option was ever considered. Again, my point in all of this is to show why it was wrong to end the debate prematurely before considering tax saving alternatives. What you as a taxpayer needs to decide is this - Was it worth the extra taxes you paid to get that phase of Streetscape done more quickly? I don't believe it was. What you as a supporter of the Mayor has to decide is this - Was it "professional" to cut short the debate before considering a viable tax-saving solution? Jim Mangin

Paul, I remember the article but I don't recall the specific expenditure. I'll have to find it and get back to you. Jim Mangin

Paul, If you do decide to look into this issue, please don't use the Mayor's office as your sole source of information. There was more deliberate deception on this issue than any other. Jim Mangin

John, I brought up your suggestion for saving tax dollars by taking back the Water Dept billing in response to Paul's call for alternatives and suggestions. I used this example because Paul's only stated reason thus far for supporting Mayor Santos is the Mayor's "professionalism." Your suggestion makes even more sense in 2007 than it did in 2003. A lot of people don't realize that that the Water utility lost money in 2006. What was done about that? Nothing. At the very least an investigation into the feasability of taking back the water billing should be conducted - if the Mayor and Council are serious about reducing taxes. If they are just paying the issue lip service, nothing will happen, again. To show Paul an example of the Mayor's unprofessionalism, I described the time he cut off the debate on the Pine Sol Bond and refused to listen to tax-saving alternatives. But to be honest, an even better example was when he charged you with "grandstanding" on the Kuhene Chemical issue. Was it grandstanding when Menendez, Corzine, and Lautenberg got involved in the issue? I asked Paul for his examples of the Mayor's professionalism, but so far none have been offerred. Jim Mangin

This is from the Jersey Journal on August 9: Kearny blames labor costs for high taxes "Kearny residents, however, also pay the highest taxes in Hudson County and recently saw a 9 percent municipal tax hike. The average property owner's tax bill is $7,402, according to a Star-Ledger analysis, and some residents say the town isn't worth the high price. George Burdell, 57, said he's fed up with Kearny and the "aggravation" of dealing with ever-rising taxes. Burdell said he has lived in the town his entire life, but is now trying to sell his house. He added that taxpayers are bearing the brunt of the town's high salaries. Labor costs, especially those related to fire and police, comprise the highest percentage of the town's budget, Santos said. "Our labor force is 60 percent police and fire, and the bulk of those salaries were determined through the binding arbitration system," Santos said. "We have tried to go through negotiations, but they were unsuccessful."

"What I don't understand is if the bond was already floated, why did the town apply to the state regarding how to use the funds?" Good question. In another post you mentioned that I wasn't against the project these excess (surplus) funds were to be used for. That's also a good point. How do I reconcile these positions? Once the Mayor and Council finally agreed that the surplus funds existed (following the Jersey Journal article) the Mayor said (incorrectly) that the funds had to be used for another UEZ project. He was wrong of course. I said that we just had to ammend the bond ordinance (again - NJSA40A:2-39). Did he deliberately mislead the people or just didn't know the law? I don't know. Ask him. The Mayor wanted to use the funds for the next phase of streetscape. This was consistent with the original bond ordinance, so no ammendment was needed. No ammendment - no discussion. The money for streetscape came from the UEZ. The orignal bond ordinance ($3.1 million) was to get the money faster and all at once to complete the Kearny Ave re-paving project. The proceeds of the bond would pay for the project and the grant would be used to pay for that portion of the bond that went toward the project. I supported this, even though it meant paying more in the form of interest and additional soft costs. I disagreed with using this surplus for the next phase of streetscape. The money was coming anyway. I didn't see the point in paying interest unnecessarily. The re-paving project made sense. If they send one third each year for three years, without the bond you either have to do the project in pieces, or wait 3 years for entire grant. Does this make sense? If not, let me know and I'll try to clarify. "What I'm now left with is the impression that the mayor and council made a decision to use the funds for another project. You would have preferred tax relief. Isn't that just a policy dispute?" A policy dispute assumes two sides disagreeing on how to use available funds. That wasn't the case. The Mayor ended the public hearing (by making the motion, which the Council voted on). We never discussed this as a policy alternative because the Mayor and Council refused to believe the money existed. That's why it was so wrong to prematurely end the public hearing. Wouldn't you agree? Think about it - How can I convince them of a better (less costly) use for the money, when I couldn't convince them the money existed? Not even while holding a copy of the annual audit. Jim Mangin

Paul, I'll be happy to answer this, but I don't understand which million dollars in debt service are you talking about? Jim Mangin

Paul, Here's what I've concluded . . . You won't be voting for me, or Al Santos anytime soon. Jim Mangin

Typical Al Santos response - evasive, contradictory and then it's off to left field. First he squarely places blame for the "bulk of police and fire salaries" on binding arbitration, inferring that the Mayor and Council were helpless (and therefore, blameless). Then, after I show that binding arbitration was only used for Fire Captains and Deputy Chiefs, he lists the mediators used during the 6+ years some of these units were without a contract. There's one problem though, mediation is not binding arbitration. The difference is that what is decided in binding arbitration is, well . . .binding. Mayor Santos doesn't think the people of Kearny will notice the difference. Wrong again Mayor. I've said it before continuing to deliberately deceive the public is an excelent reason for a recall. Jim Mangin

"Second, accusing someone of deliberately trying to mislead the public, in effect, accusing him of lying, is most certainly a personal attack." Paul, This is it? My statement that the Mayor is deliberately misleading the public is a "personal attack?" This is what you call my abusive language? To you, this is "fighting" and "name calling" (your terms, not mine). Questioning the Mayor's statement makes me "unsuited to govern?" By your definition then I am definately and absolutely "unsuited to govern." I refuse to give my up my independence, my free thinking and most of all my duty to question those in authority when I feel they are being less than honest. All I can tell you Paul, is don't ever vote for me because I will disagree with someone's position somewhere along the way. And if I feel someone is deliberately misleading the public I will point that out every time. Here's another opinion Paul - debating with you has been a colassal disappointment. You have ignored every question I have posed to you. example - The Mayor's statement about binding arbitration being responsible for the police and fire salaries is deliberately misleading. Do you have an opinion on this statement? (He asked for the fourth time). All I hear is an opinion on the fact that I have an opinion. You have twisted my positions. example - "As for police and fire, I don't understand where Jim is trying to take that. The only way to save money there is to pay police and fire less money, and it appears that we're up $2 million this year in those salaries compared to last year. So what happened?" My point was (and always was) the Mayor taking responsibility for the police and fire salaries. I keep saying it and you keep ignoring it. Do you have a comment on who is responsible for setting police and fire salaries - the Mayor and Council or an outside arbitrator? You are silent on any of my suggestions on lowering the tax levy. example - Ending the contract with United Water, my discussion on lowering the cost of employee health benefits, reducing our insurance expenditure by leaving the Middlesex Joint Insurance Fund, controlling our solid waste costs by strengthening our recycling ordinances. I can provide more examples, but you said . . . "Someone else challenged him very pointedly whether he was calling for cuts; I see no answer to that either.". Before I give you more examples, how about a comment on what I've suggested so far? Finally, let me tie all this together with another opinion. The Mayor and Council don't know what to cut and they don't know how to cut. But the Mayor is very quick to criticize my suggested cuts. In fact, he goes so far as to MAKE DELIBERATELY MISLEADING STATEMENTS about me and my suggested cuts. Now of course Paul, I know you need proof. Click here. We appropriated the Meals on Wheels Program twice in the budget. My suggestion was to eliminate the second appropriation (this was done in the following year). The Mayor characterized me as "heartless" for wanting to eliminate the Meals on Wheels Program. Do you know how hard it was to explain to the dozens of senior citizens I speak to every day that I wasn't cutting the program, just the second budget appropriation? That's why it bothers me when I read statements that are designed to fool people. And, understandedly so. Jim Mangin

"So then we come to your letter in yesterday’s Observer, and your response to me here. I’m not interested in watching politicians call names. It wouldn’t be the least bit difficult for me or any of your political opponents to sling back at you as hard as or harder than you’ve slung at Al. I’m not interested in that. I’m interested in whether you have any constructive suggestions for lowering our taxes and/or improving services. That’s why I’ve asked the questions, and what you’ve told me is that you don’t have the answers." Paul, In my letter and my response I don't call anyone any names. What I said was Mayor Santos made a deliberately misleading statement about who sets the police and fire salaries. That's what I said and I stand behind that statement. Do you have a comment? Feel free to "sling back" at me all you want. By posting my name I make it easier for people to do that. You asked for examples to support my views and I've provided them. You've asked for constructive alternatives and I've provided some (but admitidly, not enough). But you haven't answered any of my questions. Jim Mangin

Paul, One last point and then I have to go to work. I sign my name to my posts for a reason. The reason is I'm willing to defend and stand behind everything I write. But I'm not willing to defend what others write. I am not RMS and I don't know who he/she is. If you want to address a point they've made - adress it to them, not me. I've stated my opinion clearly. I believe a recall is good for the Town of Kearny for the three reasons I've stated. Hold me accountable for what I've said, not someone else. That is a standard I've set for myself and while I would like to see it in others (like you) I certainly don't demand it. Try it sometime. Jim Mangin

Paul, There's way too much here for me to comment all at once, so I'm gonna have to take this piece-meal. "Whatever the answer is to that question, let’s step back and imagine that you had been mayor when this happened. Let’s imagine that you had uncovered these funds and convinced the council to treat them as surplus funds. Next thing you know, the state finds out about it and they’re calling to funds in. We taxpayers then have to come up with the money to repay the state then on what should have been a twenty-year grant. What are you going to tell us? We now have to raise additional taxes to repay the state. And why? Because Mayor Mangin didn’t understand the legal limits on the funds." It's obvious you spoke to the Mayor and he told you what I said and what my plan was. Then he told you why it wouldn't work and you believed him. The problem is you should've asked me. There's a reason courts don't allow heresay evidence. In municipal accounting "surplus" has a specific definition. I used the term "surplus" to mean excess. We bonded for $3.1 million and the project cost $1.3 million. The $1.8 million is surplus (excess) funds. What I said to do was to ammend the bond ordinance and use the proceeds instead of issuing a new bond. Don't say "Mayor Mangin doesn't understand the legal limits." That's bull. I'm not a lawyer but I can read - NJSA 40A:2-39 if you're interested. Perfectly legal. ". . . you can’t expect me just to take your word for it; especially when it makes sense to me that a state capital grant would have conditions attached to it." Speaking of the law, did you read the bond ordinance? The UEZ grant was for the cost of the project ($1.3 million) not the total amount of the bond ($3.1 million). As I told the Mayor just before he closed the public hearing on this, it's not a UEZ bond. There's no such thing. Only the Town of Kearny has the authority to borrow money. And the $1.8 million was excess funds for that project. If you asked me for my opinion (instead of asking the Mayor for my opinion) I would have told you that I would've cancelled the unexpended balance and used it for tax relief. How? By returning the money to where it came. The proceeds came from serial bonds. They should then have been returned to an account called "Reserve to Pay Off Debt." Then you use this account to make your debt service payment instead of new tax dollars. And I don't expect you to take my word for it. Call the Division of Local Government Services. While I don't expect you take my word for anything, I do expect you to ask me what my word is, and not someone else. Now, to try and get back to the point (which was not the use of surplus funds). The only reason you have given for supporting the Mayor was because you said he was a professional. The point was (and still is) it was unprofessional of the Mayor (and Council) to close that public hearing while I was speaking just because they didn't like what I was saying. Now, do you have a comment on my point or do you need more examples? You haven't commented either on the King St / Schuyler Avenue residents. It's getting hard to keep this discussion on point. Jim Mangin

No Paul, the bottom line is not the salaries as compared to other towns. The point being made was about the Mayor’s deliberate attempt to mislead people into thinking that the police and fire salaries were set by an outside arbitrator and not the Mayor and Council. C’mon Paul, you’re a lawyer. Don’t you recognize the fallacy in his argument? According to the Mayor: Kearny taxes are high because of high police and fire dept salary increases. Police and fire salary increases are set by an outside mediator in binding arbitration. Therefore, Kearny taxes are high because of outside forces and not the Mayor and Council. This is simply not true. Ask any cop or fireman. Now I can provide you with the data you ask for. I can give you a spreadsheet showing all the police and fire salaries by rank through the last three contracts. I can then take a few days off from work and visit neighboring communities and do an analysis of their police and fire salaries just for a comparison. I can literally bury you in contract data. But my question to you is – Do you really need all this data to see that someone is trying to pull the wool over your eyes? Still, not convinced that this Mayor routinely makes statements like this to deliberately mislead people? This weekend I’ll start a new topic called “Mayor Santos’ Deliberately Misleading Statements to the Public – Part I.” All I ask is for you to open your mind a little on the subject. Jim Mangin Ps – In an earlier response I promised solutions and alternatives. I’m sorry the topic has veered off into truthfulness, but it’s important that we explore these mis-statements. A while ago I offered a series on alternatives if you’re interested in checking them out: Kearny Taxpayer's Nightmare Part I - Rising Health Benefit Costs Kearny Taxpayer's Nightmare - Part II - Rising Insurance Costs Kearny Taxpayer's Nightmare - Part III - Increased Dumping Costs

See my Letter to the Editor in this week's Observer. This is one of the many examples of mis-information that is going un-challenged lately. Jim Mangin Note to Paul - deliberately mis-leading the public is an excellent reason for a recall.

I would cut the contract with United Water. In 2001 when we took the Water Dept.back from East Orange the customer database was a disaster. If we tried billing based on that information we would return to the deficits that led to the selling of the Water Dept in the first place. The plan was (which I fully supported) to give the contract to United Water for one year (at $300,000). United Water would do the leg-work of cleaning up the customer database. We would then resume the billing with clean files. That was six years ago. Increases in technology increase our efficiency. To save taxes we need to apply that efficiency and save where we can - like the United Water contract. Jim Mangin

Paul, You characterize this discussion as a "fight"? Then I guess you would consider a similar discussion at a Town Council meeting to be "mud wrestling." To support your arguements I would be interested in hearing exactly what you saw Mayor Santos do as mayor that you thought was "exceptional." I'd also like to hear one specific example of how he established decorum at Town Council meetings. You said earlier that you saw it first hand. By your own admission, you haven't spent much time on local issues and you consider the Mayor to be a friend. Is your view of the Mayor based solely on his response to your issue? I'd understand it if it was. It's human nature to defend your defenders. But I certainly don't think you should paint his whole administration with that brush. I could be wrong. Let's hear your examples. Then we can move on to the real issues. Jim Mangin

I don't know Paul. First you were opposed to a recall because you said it would cost taxpayers money. Then, I showed that it wouldn't cost anything. Now it seems you're against a recall because you don't know who else is running. Are you entirely objective when it comes to Mayor Santos? Jim Mangin

Paul, I usually prefer to talk about the Mayor’s policies, but since you started with his “professionalism,” let’s start here. From reading your posts Paul it’s evident you believe debate is healthy. I agree. The Mayor does not. His actions stymie debate and this, in my opinion, shows his un-professionalism. And, like you, I did see this first hand. But, unlike you, I will give specific examples (perhaps you can provide examples of “professionalism.”) During the public hearing on the Pine Sol bond I made two arguments – first that some expenses included in the ordinance were not capital (and therefore, not bondable) expenses. My second argument was that instead of bonding we could use surplus funds left over from a previous bond ordinance and save administrative costs, as well as interest on what we borrowed. (long time readers of this board have heard all this from me before – here’s the link for more details http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...572&hl=pine+sol ) The Mayor denied the surplus existed and in the middle of my argument he moved to close the public hearing and stop the debate. I had to go the Jersey Journal with the documentation to prove the $1.8 million in surplus existed. How professional is it to close a public hearing just because you don’t want to hear what’s being said? Never mind the fact that I was holding a copy of the most recent audit showing the surplus existed. The Mayor wouldn’t have it. He knew he had the votes and that made the debate nothing more than a waste of time. Is this professional? And who can forget the plight of the residents of King Street and Schuyler Avenue when they came to a Town Council meeting pleading for relief? http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...314entry13314 I went to the next Agenda Meeting and asked the Mayor what we were going to do. He said it was being looked into. At the next Council meeting I introduced a resolution calling for the Town Engineer to draft a proposal on what it would cost for the Town to apply for a low-interest loan from the Environmental Infrastructure Trust Fund to fund whatever we decided to do. The Mayor and the rest of the Council refused to second the resolution which prevents a debate on the issue from happening. This is what infuriated the King Street residents so much. So you see Paul, you say the Mayor took control of the Town Council and instilled decorum and order. I say the Mayor took control of the Council and stymied debate and discussion. In my opinion, debate and discussion lead to alternatives and solutions. Alternatives and solutions are what is missing from the current administration. Part II of this discussion – Alternatives and Solutions. Jim Mangin

While it's true insurance and fixed costs have increased and state aid has not - that's not to say the Mayor and Town Council shouldn't be constantly looking for ways to save taxpayer money. It seems this administration feels that since it can't control those fixed costs it can't control the increase in taxes. Not so. Yes, there are less employees than there were 20 years ago, but there also efficiencies now that didn’t exist then. For example, 20 years ago if you wanted to view a tax map you had to go the Assessor’s office and have someone pull out those ancient documents. Now, taps maps are available on-line. If we’re not going to reduce the workforce as we become more efficient, we need to find other ways to save money. For example, Kearny has a full-time Tax Collector, full-time Assistant Tax Collector, as well as various clerks and cashiers in the Tax Collector’s office. Their job is to send out tax bills and collect the revenue. Yet we’re paying well over $300,000 a year to United Water to perform this same function for water bills, except that United also reads the water meters. I brought up this as an alternative to the 2004 water rate increase, but it was never investigated or even discussed (probably because the idea originated from John Pinho). While lay-offs may not be the answer, the real answer is out there. It just needs more debate and discussion to draw it out. And a Mayor and Council willing to listen. Jim Mangin

Way to keep it short, Paul. I'll answer all your points, but not tonight. We have a Friday night tradition in our family and sadly, it doesn't involve KOTW. Sorry KOTW. Till tomorrow . . . Jim Mangin